Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al

[daredavid]

---

Let us just all respect SC's decision and move on....

[RMK711]

The curious selective nitpicking of the Supreme Court:

Taken from Vizconde Massacre And The Questions We Must Ask Ourselves! Viewpoint Neutral

"But isn’t it the exclusive right of then Judge Tolentino, who has the opportunity to observe up close and personal the demeanor of the chief witness Ms. Alfaro to find this witness credible? Credibility is for the trial court to assess, not for the SCORP because these jurists will be simply reading the cold transcripts without the impassioned emotions, inflection of tone and fingernail tinkering which accompanied their narratives while they were being received in the sala of then Judge Tolentino. The trial judge who observed the demeanor of these witnesses in full display of their angst, fidgeting and pouting is more reliable in putting credence on their narrative than the SCORP jurists, who despite their perspicacity, cannot observe this behavior from their cloistered ivory towers.

Why did the SCORP tear-apart her theory of the case that it was Webb and company that were responsible for the gang-rape of Carmela, her death as well as the death of her mother and younger sister by selectively highlighting the unbelievable part of Ms. Alfaro’s narrative and the testimony NBI agent Sacaguing but not all the other evidence that convinced Judge Tolentino that it was Webb and company who did this ghastly crime? For example: Why didn’t the SCORP demolish the testimony of the Webb’s household helps that on the night of the incident, H. Webb went home and asked them to wash his bloodstained jacket and that the H. Webb certificate of entry to the US refers to Holland Webb.

My favorite law professor has an easy answer. If the SCORP arrives at particular position on the issue, it will pick-up from the records those that will support its position and downplay all others that are not in support."

Curious isn't it.. that the rock-solid alibi presented by Hubert Webb's defense includes a certificate H. Webb issued by United Airlines, which UA later said did not refer to Hubert Webb, but Holland Webb. Holland -> a far cry from Hubert. Could this be why Judge Tolentino was extremely skeptical of Webb's alibi, after all if they lied about one piece of evidence, they are probably lying about the rest.

But of all the most dangerous powers of the Supreme Court is the power to nitpick. To pick only those sections of the lower court ruling that will suit their ultimate end. If the desire is for an acquittal, all means are exhausted to zero in on the parts that will support an acquittal. And all of the parts that would explain why the original judge decided to convict are simply thrown away, not addressed or ignored.

Again I ask.. isn't it curiouser and curiouser? H. Webb refers to Holland Webb, not Hubert Webb. Therefore it is HOLLAND WEBB who has a rock solid alibi of being in the states, not Hubert Webb.

[itzurisen]

webb is innocent..period!

the acquittal of webb doesnt mean that he is innocent, the testimonies, the prosecution have didn't prove Webb guilty beyond reasonable doubt.. this is accdg to SC.

[disenchanted]

who then is the culprit??

[masakiton]

who then is the culprit??

mao nai dakong pangutana...
murag ang kanang group nila ni webb kai murag sila ang 3rd group nga gi dako regarding ana nga case.
ang NBI ilaha pud unta ampingan ila mga ebidensya para atleast mo support ilaha mga case

tungod sa publicity.. murag ang law enforcement derecho2 ug punit ug taw aron naa i present sa media pero kung mo abot na sa time nga mangita ug proof/facts .. dili convincing ang i present sa court

[Clifford_2008]

kasagaran raman gud sa mga taw kay one sided ra sad kaayo. it doesnt mean nga kung ang kasagaran sa sempatiya sa taw tua sa biktima kay pakasad on dayun nato ang suspek. pwede sad baya nga biktima ra pud sila. karun ku dati ang suspek kay gibayran dayun ang rason. kung pobre kaha unsa napud ang pasangil. hmm......

[slipstik]

update is that there are new witnesses, Acosta's MFR, Pnoy's order, when will this case ever end..

[masakiton]

kasagaran raman gud sa mga taw kay one sided ra sad kaayo. it doesnt mean nga kung ang kasagaran sa sempatiya sa taw tua sa biktima kay pakasad on dayun nato ang suspek. pwede sad baya nga biktima ra pud sila. karun ku dati ang suspek kay gibayran dayun ang rason. kung pobre kaha unsa napud ang pasangil. hmm......

mao jud.. mao bitaw naa court hearing aron i present ang mga documents/proof/facts/evidence/testimonies sa both sides.

lisod jud kung mag himo ug maayo nga decission kung walai klaro nga basehan (documents/proof/facts/evidence/testimonies)

[cebulifer]

double jeopardy naman kuno ni. ingon sa lawyer ni webb. so dili na pwede si webb idemanda.

nganong karon ra man ning gawas nning mga witness beh? kahibaw ang prosecution ani sa una? nganong wala man nila gipa testify? bangga lang kaayo ang prosecution.

mas credible ang "alibis" ni hubert kesa testimony ni alfaro. wa naman lain witness ang prosecution gud. morag scripted pa gyud kaayo.

[masakiton]

double jeopardy naman kuno ni. ingon sa lawyer ni webb. so dili na pwede si webb idemanda.

nganong karon ra man ning gawas nning mga witness beh? kahibaw ang prosecution ani sa una? nganong wala man nila gipa testify? bangga lang kaayo ang prosecution.

mas credible ang "alibis" ni hubert kesa testimony ni alfaro. wa naman lain witness ang prosecution gud. morag scripted pa gyud kaayo.

mao lagi... karon pa manggawas after naa nai decission nga dili mo pabor sa ilaha
ngano ila (prosecution/NBI) man pud pasagdan ang ila semen sample nga murag dako man jud to ug ma ika tabang aron narrow down or ma confirm kung ang ila gi pasanginlan ba ang sad an or dili